LaTeX generates the traditional textual footnote symbols (LaTeX uses the following sequence: ∗ † ‡ § ¶ ∥ ∗∗ †† ‡‡) as math symbols. Why? And why do all of these symbols have separate textual and math symbols variants?
\documentclass{article}
\renewcommand*{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\begin{document}
Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} %
Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} %
Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.} Text.\footnote{Hi.}
\textasteriskcentered\textdagger\textdaggerdbl\textsection\textparagraph\textbardbl%
\textsuperscript{%
\textasteriskcentered\textdagger\textdaggerdbl\textsection\textparagraph\textbardbl}
\(*\dagger\ddagger\mathsection\mathparagraph\|%
^{*\dagger\ddagger\mathsection\mathparagraph\|}\)
\end{document}
I can see a justification for the separation of * and \textasteriskcentered, but what about the other symbols?
Here two thoughts:
- I suspect this might have to do with spacing. Spacing is important for "*" and "∥" in math, but I do not see why the other symbols cannot simply be textual glyphs: they are normally not used as mathematical symbols.
- Superscript placement in math mode can be variable. Some people will argue that footnote markers should not be used directly within mathematical material, but using math mode symbols means at least that anyone defining footnote-related macros needs to make sure that the vertical placement of these symbols is consistent and appropriate; intuitively it seems this should be easier to do with purely textual definitions, but it's best if someone else fills in the details and gives pros or cons.
de.comp.text.texthere even is a definition of\@fnsymbolthat uses text or math mode: [fixltx2e + mathpazo] tanks verwirrt?. – Qrrbrbirlbel Jun 20 '13 at 0:25